THE ECLIPSE OF GOD

Martin Buber is probably most well-known for his contribution to relational theology, particularly because of the I-Thou view of relationship he emphasized, along with the stimulating insights and implications attached to it. Terms like “person,” “personhood,” “relational,” and “communion,” to name a few, are the most well-used in the theological glossary today. This is readily understandable, given the recent interest and revival of Trinitarian studies not only in Protestant theology, but also in Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologies. In fact it has been ages long since the whole Christian church has been united theologically. These are promising times. Never has there been in the history of the church since the ecumenical councils, a more positive drive towards ecumenical and yet orthodox theology.

The focus of this essay, however, is about another important yet more neglected Buberian insight. It was only through my reading of Karl Barth and T.F. Torrance that I have come across what Buber calls the “eclipse of God,” which is actually another title of Buber’s books. Buber argues that just as in an eclipse of the sun, the eclipse of God occurs because there is something between God and us. God, like the sun, is a faithful constant, an ever-present Person always in a gracious act of Self-giving and Self-communication. Like the sun that provides light and warmth, God remains faithful in providing life to all. Like the sun announcing its presence through light, our Jehoav Jireh continually announces his presence in providential care to all. Matthew 5:46 says that God “causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and unrighteous.” No one is exempted from God’s reach, and because God is an eloquent Being, no ear is inherently incapable of hearing even his whisper.

Using the analogy of the eclipse, then, we can point out at least three conclusions:

1.      God, like the sun, is the faithful Constant.

2.      If we cannot see God, it’s not because he is not there. Rather, something must be in between God and our eyes.

3.      We see God only when there no eclipsing moons in between our eyes and God.

The agonizing fact is that most of the world’s population are experiencing a theological eclipse. But it does not mean that God has chosen to hide himself from their sight. Again, he is the faithful Constant. He is a Self-giving and Self-revealing God. The reason why people cannot see him, therefore, is because of moons eclipsing God from their view. One of the earliest novels I’ve read was Alexandre Dumas’ The Count of Monte Cristo. In one of the conversations, these lines appear: “It is the way of weakened minds to see everything through a black cloud. The soul forms its own horizons; your soul is darkened, and consequently the sky of the future appears stormy and unpromising.” Our spiritual eyes wear spectacles through which things may be seen. Unfortunately, it is these spectacles that may also prevent our eyes to see other things. It is our mission to identify which spectacles serve as hindrances for our eyes to see God.

The Psalmist is very explicit: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, their deeds are vile” (14:1). Here is the answer as to why people do not recognize God; here is why people hear but do not listen; here is why people see but do not see. There is only one word: corruption. We therefore remember Origen in the second century teaching the church of the importance of the spiritual senses to be opened by the grace of God. We remember Augustine and the Reformation theologians teaching the church about the corruption of the image of God in us, which consequently meant the shutting down of our God-given capacity to know, recognize and worship our Father and Creator. And yet the problem is more than just inherent corruption. While the eclipse of God in the world can be grounded in humanity’s deprived condition, the eclipse can be caused by human culpability as well. We learn from existential philosophy that every existential “No” always has an equivalent existential “Yes.” We say No to the invitation of David because we have already made a prior Yes to either a prior invitation or just Yes to staying at home. We say No to drug abuse because we have already Yes to healthy lifestyle. We say No to Jesus Christ because we have already said Yes to other gods and idols. This is why David calls the one who says No to the true and living God a “fool,” for indeed it is a poor choice.

And yes, we can easily point our fingers to the non-believing world and judge them for their culpable incapacity to see the God who provides, protects and gives life. But certainly there are occasions when even Christians are blind to God. This includes me. The fact remains that no one can confidently say, “Now that I see, an eclipse of God can never happen to me anymore.”  The one who proclaims this is not only arrogant, but also blind.

In fact, and this comprises my main proposal: it is us, theologians and Christian thinkers, who are most vulnerable to an eclipse of God. This is mainly because of our desire (and perhaps because of the demand of academia) for a systematic theology. The example initiated by Peter Lombard in his Sentences in the twelfth century remains the aspired format of doing theology today. Theologians are still trapped in modern theology’s canonization of “systematic theology” because of the claim of the Enlightenment that truth should be cohesive to be truth. The problem with this is that it leads to fitting God within an invented “system.” Anything that does not fit or destroy the cohesiveness of the system is pruned away. In the end, what is left in a supposedly “systematic theology” are “truths” about God which our system deems worthy of mentioning. In the end, what we have done is make a Procustrean bed for God (Procustes is a character who fits his guests to their beds. He would stretch his guests if they were too short and chop their legs if they were too long for their beds.) Surely this is not what theology is all about. If theology is an act of worship to God, then it is our minds that need to be made fit into the rationality of God, not the other way around. If theology is worship, then our minds should submit to God’s own revelation through his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. We dare not chop God’s revelation or stretch his Self-proclaimed Truths in order that they might fit in a man-made system!

If we are to see God clearly and allow God to reveal himself to us in his own ways, then we need to abandon all our preconceptions, biases and prejudices. Easier said than done, I know, but we have to start somewhere now. The beginning should be the identification of these preconceptions and subjecting them to radical criticism, asking whether they are servants of the gospel or actually eclipsing tools that prevent us from a worshipful reception of God’s Self-communication. We should always be open to the possibility that it might be us, ourselves, who are causing the eclipse of God. What is required of us is a repentant attitude in the face of God’s Truth. This is why theology is always a task done in humility before God. In the presence of God our Teacher, we are students and will always be the ones taught. We are the disciples, learners and followers. And like the human Jesus, we should also progressively grow in wisdom and stature before God (Luke 2:52). Our goal, the Apostle Paul says is having “the mind of Christ” in the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:16).

CHRISTIAN FAITH versus PSEUDO-FAITH

For the sake of clarity, let me first briefly state the proposition of this essay: “Faith that seeks to be validated by canons provided by anything outside revelation is not Christian faith, but is actually unbelief.” At the end of this essay, I hope that readers will be (1) more aware of the often unqualified engagement of contemporary theology with other sources of knowledge leading to an uncritical form of dialogue, which, rather than enriching theology actually contradicts faith; and (2) able to distinguish the difference between Christian faith and Christian-unbelief-disguised-as-faith (or, pseudo-faith).

What is “faith”? The definition in Hebrews 11:1 of faith as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” provides us with a solid framework. When this is juxtaposed with Jesus statement to Thomas (the Doubter) in John 20:29, “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed,” both passages provide us with interesting insights about both the faith-agent (the who) and the faith-content (the what). Briefly, the faith-agent in the present is asked to believe a future reality (Heb 11:1) or a past reality (John 20:29) that are non-validated by sight. Jesus’ statement in John 20:29 points specifically to a past event (the resurrection), and Thomas’ pessimism about its reality. Faith, thus, is the obedient and submissive “I believe” of the faith-agent to divine realities, whether they are (1) God’s statement about Himself or (2) God’s acts both in the future and the past. Admittedly, while perhaps future realities are hard to believe on the basis of their transcendent nature, unbelief of past divine statements and events should be considered absolutely intolerable, at least in Christian theology.

The key insight here is that Christian faith is essentially obedient assent to God’s own objective Self-revelation and Self-actuation, even though there may be no empirical or material evidences that warrant the truthfulness of faith-contents. Faith-contents simply possess transcendent qualities that cannot be fitted with human-invented categories of verification, whether empirical or philosophical. It is for this reason that faith is essentially blind, and it should be blind if it is to be truly faith. The definition in Hebrews 11 clearly indicates that faith means intellectual assent in the absence of empirical proof, particularly visual evidence. John 20 even calls those who believe without presented evidences to be “blessed.” True Christians, Paul writes, “live by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor 5:7).

The question, perhaps is this: “Can belief in and devotion to something empirically unverifiable rational?” Or to put it more bluntly: “Are Christians sane?” The answer is a resounding YES. In fact, faith is a science in its own right. It has its subject (the faith-agent; although the ultimate Subject is God) and object (the faith-content, who is also the Subject, God). Now all sciences have their own procedures and apparatuses of investigation. For instance, astronomers look up and use telescopes because the objects of their investigations are the distant bodies. Biologists, on the other hand, generally look down and use microscopes because the objects of their investigations are organisms and their micro-construction. Now while astronomy and biology are both sciences, they are nevertheless two different sciences with distinct methodologies and apparatuses. As such, it is illogical and unscientific for an astronomer to use a microscope to study the stars.  Astronomy, to remain scientific, should faithfully oblige itself to a method of inquiry in accordance to its object of investigation. It is only through this that astronomy could be considered rational. Similarly, if faith is a science, then faith-agents should subject themselves to the nature of the faith-contents. As such, because the faith-contents are essentially not empirically verifiable, then faith-agents have to faithfully comply to faith-contents’ demands or non-demands. It is only through this that faith is rational, i.e. when faith-agents submit their rationalities to the unique logic and rationality of the faith-content.

Ultimately, therefore, to believe or have faith in something only because it has been proven by categories of verification outside of the science of faith is not Christian faith, but is actually unbelief, or at least an evidence of unbelief. Let us look at the statements below:

(s1) Pigs do not fly.

(s2) Pigs fly.

(s3) God exists, because philosophical argumentation proves it.

(s4) God exists, although it can never be proven by human reasoning or empirical testing.

(s1) is a statement of unbelief based on empirical data. It is a rational unbelief because the faith-agent submits his/her rationality to the nature of pigs that reveal and manifest themselves as creatures unable to fly.

(s2)  is a statement of belief without regard of empirical data. It is an irrational belief because the faith-agent does not subject his/her rationality to the nature of pigs that reveal and manifest themselves as creatures unable to fly.

(s3) masquerades itself as a statement of faith, but it is actually a statement of unbelief. This is because the faith-agent only believes after being intellectually satisfied. Without intellectual satisfaction, the state of having faith would not have been achieved. It is also irrational because the faith-agent does not submit his/her rationality to the nature of the object of inquiry (God), who reveals himself as transcendent and beyond logical proof.

(s4) is a statement of faith. This is Christian faith. God, whose nature remains transcendent and immeasurable by human-invented methodologies and apparatuses can never be subject to human verification. It is rational because the faith-agent submits his/her rationality to the transcendent rationality of its Object, God. Also, it is Christian faith because it believes that God’s Self-spoken statements and Self-actualizing interaction within space and time are only validated and authenticated by God Himself.

This brings us to the crucial questions: “So what now of the attempts of contemporary theology to verify faith-contents through non-theological sources?” “Is this endeavour rational or irrational?” “Does this serve Christian faith or actually promote unbelief?” “Does preaching about a verified truth not implicitly encourage unbelief towards unverifiable truths?” While I genuinely believe in the practice of apologetics, the engagement of Christian theology with other fields of inquiry, and the need for Christian theology to be relevant with aspects of everyday life, as a Christian theologian, I think (with K Barth TF Torrance) that the Gospel has its own rationality and logic that can never be measured by other sciences and fields of inquiry. To attempt to reconcile faith-contents with extra-biblical resources to the point of believing only on the basis of validating philosophical, scientific and cultural canons is actually atheism, and thus pseudo-faith.


Jesus is Lord!